THE COMPUTATIONAL AND SIMULATED UNIVERSES

[Edgar L. Owen]

The universe is pretty clearly computational but our brains simulate it as the familiar 'physical' universe. But even that simulation is clearly just neural data in our brain. And in fact we can directly experience this. Take any 'physical' object, say a stone, and carefully analyze what it is as you experience it. You will find that it's actually a dimensional association of a set of sensory information, such as hardness, weight, texture, certain coloration, locational context etc. What the mind/simulation does is to combine such associations of specific types of data/information, and label them 'physical' objects.

But in the final analysis only information can be experienced. Everything that can be experienced is just information. Our sensory inputs are data, and our brains's simulations of reality 'paint' this information with its appearances produced by our interactions with it to make it colorful, meaningful and easier for our brains to compute and thus make our environments easier to survive within.

Our simulations portray a computational information/data universe as the apparently physical world we experience around us.

Our simulation has adaptively evolved over millennia to make it easier for our brains to compute effective actions in actual reality on the basis of our simulated mental reality.

See more of CTOE, The Complete Theory of Everything at http://edgarlowen.info/reality.shtml

Edgar

[Santeri Satama]

torstai 10. syyskuuta 2020 16.21.06 UTC+3 Edgar L. Owen kirjoitti:

The universe is pretty clearly computational

Pretty clearly the math that standard theories that physicalism presupposes and refers to is not computational. We need to be careful with out definitions, so let's define computability as what computers can actually do, both human and mechanic. In that sense computability is restricted to rational domain, and infinite processes called "real numbers" are not computational  and mostly also non-demonstrable as they are non-algorithmic thanks to axiom of choice. Floating point etc. approximations of applied math are just rational expressions, they are of practical use for engineering, but not what the standard theories refer to.

Standard theories refer to (pseudo)numbers of real complex plane, which don't satisfy field axioms except by absurd and counter factual axiomatic declaration, by make-believe BS.

Hypothesis of qualitatively very different quantum computation is so far part of the discussion. Standard theories of physicalism are highly abstract conceptualizations presuming completed infinite processes, and as such not computational, or even consistent, as completed infinity can be at best be a paraconsistent notion.

[Martin Helmer]

What is it that computes the behaviour of the external world? (the transition from state n -> n+1)  Is it something outside of the universe?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Martin,

No, the universe computes itself. The universe is computational. There is not even nothing 'outside' the universe. In fact there is no outside.

Edgar

[Edgar L. Owen]

Santeri,

Yes, good point. In a granular universe the computations and numbers used need not include irrational numbers. The mathematician Gregory Chaitin, in his book The Quest for Omega, has explored this possibility.

As for quantum processes and randomness I have an entirely different explanation of how that works in my book Universal Reality 2.0 -The New Theory of Everything..

Edgar

[Santeri Satama]

I'm sorry, the older I get, the more TL:DR type I get. But I'm very interested in this topic. How many sentences you need to compress what you mean by computation, and how that relates to Turing Machine on one hand, and experiencing mathematical intuitions on the other? What's the foundational theory of math you go by?

I watched this, very nice discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RLdSvQ-OF0
Some I agree with, some I have very nuanced difference of opinion with. Us being participant co-creators of math which exists and evolves also in transpersonal mind is easy to agree with as a supporter of intuitionist philosophy of mathematics.

My view on time is that Bergson durations are indefinite continua, and hence not classically computable, but can still have mereological structures and also some kinds of arithmetics defined.

A very preliminary and perhaps deep, perhaps silly idea with possible connections with Chaitin complexity is Turing machine based on relational operators < and >, interpreted positively as indefinite open ended processes, instead of Turing machine based on discreet 0 and 1. AFAIK Turing machine is not formally committed to unidirectional linear time, or is it?

[Dana Lomas]

When it comes to the math, I struggle to keep up, but nonetheless intuit that it somehow fundamentally factors into idealism ~ i.e. Platonic forms/ideas ~ so I'm curious as to what you math geeks make of this ... This equation will change how you see the world (the logistic map)

[Santeri Satama]

Mathematical Platonism usually refers to eternal and immutable world of math "somewhere", in that sense it's very different from intuitionistic idealism of open and evolving participatory creation of math with fascinating relations with philosophy of time, as connecting intuitionism with computation theory leads to process philosophy.

Logistic map is a fascinating generative algorithm, but the computed images of Mandelbrot etc. have nothing to do "real number line" and "real complex plane", which mostly consists of non-computational fairy dust. Computers actually compute only rational numbers, so the actual math exists and is computed on rational complex plane.

[Dana Lomas]

Santeri ... so there is no actual correlation between the logistic map and, for example, cyclical, fluctuating population dynamics?

[Martin Helmer]

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. (Not trying to put words in your mouth).

There is a present state of the universe : S1

There is a function f() when applied to S1 gives us the next state of the universe S2.

So S2 = f(S1)

The following is somewhat influenced by naive computer science and math understanding. I do not claim this is formally correct or anything, but it's the best i can do to express the paradox/contradiction I intuitively feel about the proposed model. 

The computational rules of f() are embedded in S, so we can say that S = f + O (O = reality as we experience it)

Calculation of f(f + O) is instantaneous, with no intermediate states. It is also centralized (not parallelized) Parallelization of the computation would lead to intermediate states.

So a subset of S calculates with a single instant calculation the next state of S.  This does not sound like a Turing Machine to me. 

 

 

[Santeri Satama]

That's not what I meant. Whether we look at this in the domain or real numbers or in rational (quadratic) numbers is somewhat technical but computationally and philosophically not less important question. Thinking and constructing math in terms of rational quadrances means thinking in terms of areas instead of lengths, where you often end up with bothersome square etc. roots with irrational values. Quadratic approach can often reveal nice and exact rational values. Centrality of area/plane in math is IMHO of high philosophical importance, and (should be) very important for physics also.  Whitehead's point-free geometry starting from the notion of "region" seems highly relevant here, as we observe demonstrations of math mostly by looking at symbols etc. on a plane.

[David Sundaram]

On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 9:28:42 AM UTC-7, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Martin,

No, the universe computes itself. The universe is computational. There is not even nothing 'outside' the universe. In fact there is no outside.

On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-4 martin...@gmail.com wrote:

What is it that computes the behaviour of the external world? (the transition from state n -> n+1)  Is it something outside of the universe?

Hi-Ho, Martin and Edgar -

Here is my axiom-based 'model' of IT 😁 (excerpted from my treatise):

"It has ... recently struck me that developments in the field of modern computer systems may provide us with an even more illustrative model for the universally creative, feedback-loop based interfusion of The Essence of Creativity and the Life of every individual and amalgamated aspect of Its expression. To explore this proposition, imagine if you will that the main aim or goal of said Essence’s ‘program’– the primary motive (i.e. desire) ensconced in Its ‘source code’ – is to maximally express and thereby experience Love and Joy, to Joyfully express and experience Love and Lovingly express and experience Joy to the greatest possible degree in every possible way, or something like that.*

Footnote*: Not that this is the only available supposition, mind you. Many, for example, think and feel that the expression and experience of Power and Success is Life’s prime imperative and so believe that maximal actualization and experience of these (i.e., of Power and Success) must be The 'Cat’s Meow' (idiomatically speaking). However, since I myself most keenly enjoy recalling and vicariously reliving the loving and joyful times I had as a child, and as I continue to spontaneously resonate with the ‘Spirit’ exuberantly displayed in the antics of the (unadulterated by conditioning) young of many species including ours, also having deeply appreciated ‘returning’ to expressing and experiencing Love and Joy after sometimes lengthy dry-spell detours and digressions therefrom, and having gradually become more and more thoughtfully impressed by Jesus’ saying things like: “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3); “Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure [i.e., that keeps on being loving] unto the end, the same shall be saved.” (Matthew 24:12 13); and “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matthew 25:34), the proposition pertaining to the expression and experience of Love and Joy which I put forward in the preceding paragraph is the one I believe to be and so suggest is both the most pertinent and the most propitious in the long term.

Next, to picture the activity of the Living Entity of our Creation (i.e., of ‘the Son’), imagine a universe-sized network made up of an infinite array of banks upon banks of computers matrixially web-strung together by way of both parallel and series connections, all simultaneously, individually and together, multi-processing the above referenced Love and Joy ‘program’, with each processor and every amalgamation thereof functionally outputting the ‘solution’ it ‘calculates’ will most probably yield the greatest possible Love and Joy ‘result’ in its case (as far as it can prognostically project, that is), which ‘solution’ then operationally functions as input in relation to any and all associated processors to whatever extent they ‘calculate’ it to be relevant to their own Love and Joy process, such that said output-n-input data-packet sequences co-actively ripple and reverberate around the network, sparking Love and Joy focused perceptions and decisions (i.e.,  experiences and expressions) which conjointly determine what takes place here, there and everywhere in ‘the body’ of said Entity* over the course of time.

* “In him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28) is how this was articulated by one who conceptualized said Entity as being the (male) ‘Son’ of The Spirit of the universal (male) ‘Father’ of Being, two millennia ago.

As it ties many otherwise disparate, often apparently functionally contra­dictory aspects of Life’s process together in ways which make sense to me, I proffer this Love and Joy ‘program’ being universally, round-after-round multi-processed on a network of ‘computers’ model as potentially being of significant navigational assistance to others who also aim to holistically optimize the progression of Life in and around themselves, as I do. ..."

[Santeri Satama]

I'm not sure where this comment is addressed at, but I'll take a shot.

Centralized, (near?!) instantaneous computation applies to symbolic expressions that can be written as palindromic symmetries, such as number-antinumber schemes (e.g. integers, exponents and their inverse Egyptian fractions, etc.). 'Centralized' has different meaning here than what you may have implied, referring to reducing palindromic strings from the center, instead of reading chirally from left or right. A nice hypothesis is that in computational universe (almost) instantaneous reduction of palindromic or otherwise highly symmetric number-antinumber strings could be behind "spooky action at distance". But any case, all computation is temporal process, how ever fast. My comprehension of various qualities of computation times is very rudimentary, not sure if centered reduction palindromic forms would be it's own computation time, in addition to polynomic, exponential etc times, or associated closer with latter. I'm not even sure if Turing machine is defined to read the symbol tape only chirally either left or right, or is centered reading included in the formal definition.

What I'm thinking about  is not computation between states, recursively or otherwise, but continuous process of reducting and generating palindromic strings. I don't follow your argument why parallel (distributed?) computation would lead to intermediate states, but centralized not, as I consider any and all computation temporal process any case.

I haven't got far, but this could be something to start playing with:

<><<>><>

<<><><>>
><><><><
<>><><<>

We could define the center <> as identity element, and if reduction ends up with <>, computation halts, same for ><, but maybe with different semantic interpretations.

Suggestions for applicaple reduction rules:
>< : _
<<>>: <>
<><><> : <><> : <>

By splitting and concatenating these symbols also variety of Stern-Brocot type trees/strings can be generated, and much else.

[Jim Cross]

The universe is pretty clearly computational

That's not so clear to me. It looks more to be a combination of order and chaos, as much indeterminate as determinate.

It's hard to follow the rest of your argument if you start with a huge and unexplained assumption.

In what way is the universe computational? Please explain. 

[Jim Cross]

This paper might be interesting to throw into the discussion.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.01540

The world as a neural network
Vitaly Vanchurin
We discuss a possibility that the entire universe on its most fundamental level is a neural network. We identify two different types of dynamical degrees of freedom: "trainable" variables (e.g. bias vector or weight matrix) and "hidden" variables (e.g. state vector of neurons). We first consider stochastic evolution of the trainable variables to argue that near equilibrium their dynamics is well approximated by Madelung equations (with free energy representing the phase) and further away from the equilibrium by Hamilton-Jacobi equations (with free energy representing the Hamilton's principal function). This shows that the trainable variables can indeed exhibit classical and quantum behaviors with the state vector of neurons representing the hidden variables. We then study stochastic evolution of the hidden variables by considering D non-interacting subsystems with average state vectors, x¯1, ..., x¯D and an overall average state vector x¯0. In the limit when the weight matrix is a permutation matrix, the dynamics of x¯μ can be described in terms of relativistic strings in an emergent D+1 dimensional Minkowski space-time. If the subsystems are minimally interacting, with interactions described by a metric tensor, then the emergent space-time becomes curved. We argue that the entropy production in such a system is a local function of the metric tensor which should be determined by the symmetries of the Onsager tensor. It turns out that a very simple and highly symmetric Onsager tensor leads to the entropy production described by the Einstein-Hilbert term. This shows that the learning dynamics of a neural network can indeed exhibit approximate behaviors described by both quantum mechanics and general relativity. We also discuss a possibility that the two descriptions are holographic duals of each other.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jim,

Basically in my books I provide plenty of evidence the universe fundamentally consists of data, at a level below particles and their attributes. These are basically the fundamental data types. The world as we experience it around us very clearly consists of neural data structures in our brains. Yet this neural data universe seems completely physically real to us. This is very strong evidence the actual universe also consists entirely of data, and our brains just sample and reorganize relevant data for our biological needs.

Now if the universe consists entirely of data it's well known that the only way data can change in a logical and rule based manner is computationally. Thus the conclusion that the universe is overwhelmingly likely to be computational.

Now this doesn't mean its deterministic.Quantum computations that produce random results at the particle level also occur. In my book Universal Reality 2.0 - The New Theory of Everything I go into how this works in detail.

Edgar

http://EdgarLOwen.info/reality.shtml  for my CTOE: Complete Theory of Everything

[Jim Cross]

There is still a lot of "well-knowns" and "clearlys" in your explanation that skates over a lot of major issues.

Data in computation is represented as bits of 1 or 0. How is the world represented as bits?

Data in a computer is changed by computation. That doesn't automatically mean data in the world is also changed by computation or whether it even makes any sense to apply the same paradigm. 

The brain, although it may have neural structures, works at least in part in an analog manner. How does that square with a universe of discrete bits, data?

[Santeri Satama]

It seems much more clear to think that neurology does not produce the experience, but acts like filters and channel switches.

Data is product of measuring. Wittgenstein: "Mathematics as such is always a measure, not the thing measured".

[Jim Cross]

If the theories I have presented here are correct, however, not even the ultimate computer-the universe itself ever contains enough information to completely specify its own future states. The present moment always contains an element of genuine novelty and the future is never wholly predictable. Because biological processes also generate information and because consciousness enables us to experience those processes directly, the intuitive perception of the world as unfolding in time captures one of the most deep-seated properties of the universe

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/layzer/Arrow_of_Time.pdf 

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jim,

No no, the computational universe doesn't need to and doesn't contain all the information of its future states. It just takes the information of its current state and computes the next state based on the rules encoded in the complete fine tuning.

Edgar

[David Sundaram]

I haven't read this book, titled The Mind of God,  by Paul Davies. Given my present time-n-energy inclinations/priorities, I am not likely either. I thought it worth posting the following 'blurb' summarizing its contents in case others wish to do so because Paul's presentation clearly relates to matters discussed in this thread.

Throughout history, humans have dreamed of knowing the reason for the existence of the universe. In The Mind of God, physicist Paul Davies explores whether modern science can provide the key that will unlock this last secret. In his quest for an ultimate explanation, Davies reexamines the great questions that have preoccupied humankind for millennia, and in the process explores, among other topics, the origin and evolution of the cosmos, the nature of life and consciousness, and the claim that our universe is a kind of gigantic computer. Charting the ways in which the theories of such scientists as Newton, Einstein, and more recently Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman have altered our conception of the physical universe. Davies puts these scientists' discoveries into context with the writings of philosophers such as Plato. Descartes, Hume, and Kant. His startling conclusion is that the universe is "no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." By the means of science, we can truly see into the mind of God.